• lukas@lemmy.haigner.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I was in a meeting with an external company once that sells NFTs. Yes, it was fun. Yes, the only reason I was there is 'cause I thought I’d be hilarious. Yes, I wrote money laundering into their interactive word cloud, and others wrote similar thoughts. Plz buy this jewelry for $500 so that you can use that virtually in Zoom. Some are convinced that Blockchain is the future. Others not so much.

    Future Squidward Meme

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    honestly a distributed ledger makes alot of sense for backups, having a swarm of backup nodes which replicate your backup data… good resiliency and geographic distribution.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What you want in that situation is called a “replicated database”, not a “distributed ledger” and certainly not a “blockchain”.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        99.999% of the time what people imagine when they say blockchain is good is effectively just the matrix protocol, which can be summarized as federated eventually consistent databases (and that’s pretty dang neato).

        • fubo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          If a single organization owns all the servers, there’s not even in theory a reason to prefer blockchain over a plain replicated database. And in practice anyone who’s pushing blockchain is either an ideologue or a scammer; either way they don’t have the user’s best interests at heart.

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I haven’t seen a replicated database that operates over the same scale of failure domains as distrubuted ledgers, do you have good examples of that?

        • fubo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They don’t have to. If you don’t have database replicas that are actively trying to subvert the system, inject bogus transactions, etc. then you don’t have the set of failure domains for which blockchains are in theory useful for.

          If you’re running backups for a single organization, you just need replicated data storage on servers owned and operated by that organization. If you’re running backups for a set of users who all trust your organization (e.g. if you’re Dropbox or the like), you also don’t need blockchain.

          • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s pretty reasonable not to implicitly trust an organization to always get things right or always be honest about what they are doing. Couldn’t there be theoretical value in spreading backups across multiple organizations and having cryptographic evidence they are all doing their jobs correctly, to reduce the need for that trust?

            • fubo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Theoretically? Sure. But in reality, blockchain pushers are fanatics, scammers, or both, so no real organization should trust them.

              • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                IMO that’s a pretty limiting perspective. The existence of a lot of noise around a technology isn’t a great reason to take a hard stance against ever using it.

                • fubo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you think you’ve found the one honest snake-oil salesman, you’re almost certainly wrong. That’s part of reality.

          • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I am not talking about back ups but more of dealing with the problems of distributed data in general. I.E. How do you, across a network of intermittent reliability (at a certain scale this is a guarantee not a choice), in sure that a piece of data written to and read by multiple actors is constant and available across the system?

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      It makes no sense at all to distribute the backup generation step, and what do you do with your ledger once the retention period ends?

      There may be something you can do with a ledger in the “full - incremental - incremental - incremental …” cycle, but I can’t think of anything that’s actually useful.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Since we are designing the consensus algorithm we could remove data that is expired with some quorum vote, or indication from a key holder.

        • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          or you could just not do that, and keep control of your own data. Why the hell would I want you to have a vote on whether I can delete my private data, which for some unfathomable reason, someone decided everyone should have a copy of?

          • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In practice, data owners don’t have control of their data, sysadmins do. This gets complicated in multi-orgnizational data setups.

              • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                data owner was the key one here. If I run a storage service for example, I have control of the data, but you would see it as a breech of trust if I deleted your data, or gave access to someone else without your permission, because you in the scenario are the data owner.